Millionaire cleared of rape after claiming he ‘accidentally penetrated’ teenager

originally posted by: cleaner
it could happen if you were playing naked twister

First logical answer in the thread.

a reply to: peck420

When I first became a cop and heard "These aren't my pants." as an excuse as to why there was drugs/drug paraphernalia/weapon on someone's person....I thought it was hilarious. After about 200 times, it was just kind of sad.

99.9% of the time a bullsh*t excuse is exactly that.......bullsh*t.

The fact that this guy was acquitted doesn't give me confidence in his innocence. It lessens my confidence in the 'justice' system.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
The fact that this guy was acquitted doesn't give me confidence in his innocence. It lessens my confidence in the 'justice' system.

Actually it appears to be showing that the system is working.

The jury hasn't based their decision on some deliberately provocative headline that bends the truth to make sales, they've based it on the actual evidence in front of them.

They haven't automatically assumed it must be rape because the defendant is from the Middle East, they've listened to both sides of the story.

Sounds like the justice system is working just as it should be. It's certainly working far better than the kangaroo court being held here on ATS.

While we, ATS as a whole, all make a big show about "denying ignorance", pointing out how we're too clever to fall for media/political/whatever manipulation... we're not. I'd bet good money that more than half the posters barely finished reading the headline before they started furiously bashing away at their keyboard in indignation; the other half made up their minds then skim-read the article looking for quotes to pluck out of context to support the side they had already taken. This isn't confined to this thread, it's endemic throughout the website. It endemic on most forums, to be honest, but I really thought ATS was supposed to be somewhere different, something different.

I include myself in this accusation, from time to time, but today is not that time.

I'll just keep doing what I do: trying to deny ignorance when I'm not too busy frothing at the mouth over some imagined or misunderstood outrage.

Wow ok the real question is why was his schlong hard before the fall? There are no coincidences like that.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
When I first became a cop and heard "These aren't my pants." as an excuse as to why there was drugs/drug paraphernalia/weapon on someone's person....I thought it was hilarious. After about 200 times, it was just kind of sad.

99.9% of the time a bullsh*t excuse is exactly that.......bullsh*t.

The fact that this guy was acquitted doesn't give me confidence in his innocence. It lessens my confidence in the 'justice' system.

You took this man's statement when? You spoke with the arresting officers when?

It is one thing to assume something is ridiculous because you are present and have received first hand knowledge as to why it is ridiculous. It is something completely different to take twisted media bits and try to equate that to the same.

Saudi privilege seems to real.

@EvillerBob @peck420

I read the entire article. Along with additional articles that others (supporting this creep) have posted.

His DNA was on/in her person. So you can't deny contact was made. She claims said contact was not consensual. He claims he accidentally fell on her. It's friggin ludicrous. If he had just claimed "Yeah, we did it but she was totally into it." I would have nothing really to say about it. Because until there's better advancements in lie detector technology no one would be able to prove if she's lying or if he's lying. Unfortunately shady women get away with false accusations because of this, and LOTS of men get away with rape because of this. But I said it before, and I'll say it again, that was NOT his defense. Instead he came up with a story dumber than something my 7 yo could come up with. And it worked. Sad day in the UK.


And just because someone's acquitted or found not guilty, does not necessarily mean they are NOT GUILTY. For you to believe that it does makes you just as naive as the people you're railing on for trying him in the court of public opinion based on an inflammatory headline. Case in point: OJ Simpson.

originally posted by: peck420
It is one thing to assume something is ridiculous because you are present and have received first hand knowledge as to why it is ridiculous. It is something completely different to take twisted media bits and try to equate that to the same.

So you're telling me you believe that he fell on her and accidentally got his semen in her?

If so, I've got some ocean front property in Oklahoma to sell you.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

originally posted by: peck420
It is one thing to assume something is ridiculous because you are present and have received first hand knowledge as to why it is ridiculous. It is something completely different to take twisted media bits and try to equate that to the same.

So you're telling me you believe that he fell on her and accidentally got his semen in her?

If so, I've got some ocean front property in Oklahoma to sell you.

Since your hanging your entire claim on a media bit, not on what was actually said...should I even bother.

No probs, you're right. He's an animal. Some one should hunt him down and kill him. A police officer, online, said so!

Granted. That came from a police officer, and we KNOW THEY ARE ALL CRIMINALS (just read one of the hundreds of threads/blogs/newspaper articles/videos/news streams)...so, do to them what you would to criminals I say!

Don't even bother with the courts! The public has spoken.

a reply to: peck420

You didn't answer the question, and have instead resorted to sensationalist hyperbole.

The point is that his semen was in her vagina.
The point is that he isn't claiming that they had consensual sex, but she later changed her mind.
The point is that what he's claiming is ridiculous, even if the tripped-and-fell explanation is only a "possibility", there is almost no way of "accidentally" ending up with your semen in someone's vagina.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
@EvillerBob @peck420

I read the entire article. Along with additional articles that others (supporting this creep) have posted.

...

But I said it before, and I'll say it again, that was NOT his defense. Instead he came up with a story dumber than something my 7 yo could come up with. And it worked. Sad day in the UK.

Except that wasn't his defence. I've covered this, I think two if not three times. I like to think I've covered it with specific details as well. You're more than welcome to go back and read those posts.

The jury are not bound to only consider the defence he has put forward. They are bound to considered whether, as a matter of fact, they believe that the elements of the offence occurred.

We won't know the exact grounds for the jury's decision, we can only speculate. A very, very, very well educated speculation would be that the jury believed that there was penetration, but that the defendant was given a reason to believe that the girl consented.

If you've sat through many court cases, I'm sure you've seen plenty of people put their foot in their mouth when questioned by a smart lawyer. If not, you need to go find some smarter lawyers to watch!

Edit to add: the lawyer involved has a bit of a reputation for half time submissions. That usually an indication that he is very, very good at getting witnesses/complainants to undermine the prosecution case when being cross examined - to the point that he doesn't need to call any defence witnesses or even put a defence forward, because there's no evidence left to support continuing the prosecution.

but that the defendant was given a reason to believe that the girl consented

Did that reason happen to come in the form of green notes?

I can't possibly see that statement as accurate. The defendant would need either the prosecution or several witnesses saying the girl gave clear consent in some form, or some manner of recording.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: peck420

You didn't answer the question, and have instead resorted to sensationalist hyperbole.

All of these points have been answered, in depth, on multiple occasions, by two different people - and I'd wager that peck420 works in the criminal justice system or has studied it extensively, because they're saying all the right things.

At University I once lied about having drunken sex with the girl in the flat next to ours. That doesn't mean we weren't both consenting, I just didn't want to get a kicking from her boyfriend.

If he lied about having sex (which I personally believe, I think there was at least penetration) that doesn't mean he didn't have a reason to believe it was consensual.

a reply to: EvillerBob

For someone involved with the criminal justice system, he sure lost his temper quickly.

As I mentioned before, any "reason to believe" short of verbal consent or some sort of absurdly obvious gestures would not (or should not) fly in court. Otherwise, you end up with people saying she "consented" because her skirt was short.

That's not the point I was trying to make, however. The point I was trying to make is that lying in a court of law is illegal, and both him and the girl are likely guilty of it (if the crazier parts of her story are things she actually claimed.)
Unless perjury doesn't apply to the defence and prosecution?

a reply to: redyfredy8819

Wow ok the real question is why was his schlong hard before the fall? There are no coincidences like that.

He said he was frail ... maybe he had taken Viagra to assist his desires

All sounds a bit beyond belief ... his story ... there are so many slants we will never know that played out in the apartment
But who knows ... maybe pigs can really fly

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

but that the defendant was given a reason to believe that the girl consented

Did that reason happen to come in the form of green notes?

I can't possibly see that statement as accurate. The defendant would need either the prosecution or several witnesses saying the girl gave clear consent in some form, or some manner of recording.

What?

No. Absolutely not. I'm not even sure where to begin answering that.

First of all, it's for the prosecution to prove that "A does not reasonably believe that B consents". "Clear consent" or some manner of recording might be helpful, no doubt about that, but certainly no need for it at all. You'll notice that consent itself is not the key thing here, just reasonable belief that there is consent. If you think that's wrong, you'll need to take it up with Parliament as they wrote the legislation.

Secondly, plenty of cases have been lost because the complainant undermined their own case when questioned in the witness box.

Incidentally - what do you mean by "clear consent"? They have to say it out loud? Or would placing someone's hand between their legs and pulling that person down on top of them be considered "clear consent"? I personally guess that the jury might have believed the latter (or something very like it) happened and that formed the basis of the acquittal.

a reply to: EvillerBob

It was sarcasm, don't worry about it.

Yes, that would count. As I said, verbal communication or very obvious physical actions. However, and while I may be confusing the US and UK laws, "I thought she wanted it" does not a defence for rape charges make. It's the girl's actions compared to what the Jury thinks is reasonable, not the defendant's thoughts that matter. Otherwise, as I said, you get people saying "her short skirt meant she consented."

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: EvillerBob
That's not the point I was trying to make, however. The point I was trying to make is that lying in a court of law is illegal, and both him and the girl are likely guilty of it (if the crazier parts of her story are things she actually claimed.)
Unless perjury doesn't apply to the defence and prosecution?

Perjury applies. It gets a bit... sticky, shall we say, with defendants.

There is a difference between perjury that results in the defendant escaping conviction, and perjury that doesn't actually significantly affect the end result. If the jury thought he was lying and that he did have sex, but still acquitted him, then his perjury didn't actually influence the outcome of the case. Their decision wasn't based on proving whether or not there was penetration.

The reason why I say it gets a bit sticky, is that the courts are very wary about perjury being seen as a "back door" conviction - in other words, the main case failed so the prosecution are trying something else to get a conviction. If the perjury was the reason the case failed, then it would be in the public interest to prosecute. If the perjury was incidental then it most likely shouldn't be prosecuted.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: EvillerBob

It was sarcasm, don't worry about it.

Yes, that would count. As I said, verbal communication or very obvious physical actions. However, and while I may be confusing the US and UK laws, "I thought she wanted it" does not a defence for rape charges make. It's the girl's actions compared to what the Jury thinks is reasonable, not the defendant's thoughts that matter. Otherwise, as I said, you get people saying "her short skirt meant she consented."

This is the wording of the offence, as it stands under UK law - s 1 Sexual Offences Act 2003

Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

So if a defendant is saying "I thought she wanted it", the jury needs to consider whether it was reasonable for him to form that belief in that situation.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: trollz

Wow indeed, I saw this in a movie once, but it was meant as a joke when a guys best friend said he didn't mean to do it, and the guy said "Oh yeah", "I'm so sorry my friend, but I was over to see if she was okay while you were out of town, but I slipped and fell and accidentally stuck my # into your wife".

the last boyscout and the scene didnt go down like that
have to be on point when you are referencing one of the best flicks of all time